France : knife attack in an elementary school, man shouted "Allahu ackbar"

I don't feel really somewhere in the political spectrum. I come from a left background, but over the years, I went more and more disgusted by the left. It would take a long time to explain why I ended to feel uncomfortable with the left, mostly because with time, I red a lot, listened a lot of people and got ridd of some of the naive narritive I believed in when I was a teenager.
To give just an example, I ended to realize that a lot of people at the left had a lot of scorn for the poorest part of the white population, especially, at some elections where some leftists constantly said that the far right were less "educated". Excepted they didn't understood some things, those people were not less educated, they had less diplomas, and those people were doing a much more important task : feeding the people, that a lot of people with a lot useless diplomas. Itself that kind of event didn't made change my political opinions but started reflexions.
What is sure is that I have some positions that are unacceptable for the left, something else which is sure is that part of my way of thinking remain rooted in the left.

Concerning, Marine Le Pen, I don't like her. The FN had many corruption cases, which is for me simply unacceptable. I believe in strict justice for the poor and the mighty. I like that proverb "pitty to the wicked is cruelty to the benevolent". I would be maybe more measured for some less important figures of that parti, but I remain extremly cautious toward any politician. They're seductive, and great at looking as good people even when they're totally immoral. They're adapted to their function.
Marine Le Pen, I would like her to disappear from the political life, and if it have been shown that she was corrupted, she deserve prison, as any other politician.

To be more accurate, I was for a long time a big advocate of institution reforms. I went interested in the different methods of voting, of selecting representants, at organizing power in other ways to cure democracy from morale corruption. I still believe that such reforms would be interesting, yes, but, I ended to doubt of democracy itself. I'm not an advocate of monarchy, even less of any totalitarian regime or tyranny. But I ended to wonder : why every democracy end to be corrupted ? Why are we facing some problems that existed in the ancient roman republic or athenian democracy.
For me the answer of that is that the process of elections, democracy favor manipulative narcissic people to get in power. An election is a process where the most popular people get the power. For that, everything is valid : lies, propaganda, deceptive speech, having to get powerfull allies in exchange of favor given back after the rise to power, exchange of favor.
My conclusion is that democracy doesn't favor mentally healthy people to get in power. I'm not a psychiatrist, but as I understand things, that kind of situations favour psychopaths and sociopaths. I simply don't trust democracy anymore, even if I don't favour anything else for that.

No problems, I fully understood that you are something respectfull, and even if I don't agree with you, I esteem and respect you.


To answer the rest about "races and people".
First : It's true I should avoid to speak of "white people", I should rather say "native metropolitan french" : I do take in consideration : people of colour adopted by native french, people of mixed race, acculturated people of colour. All those people are ethnic metropolitan french. (I'm speaking mostly of the situation in metropolitan France in that case.

To answer what you says, I will define what's a "people" as I understand things.

The short definition I would give : "A people is a group of people who recognize each other as members of the same people and feel that they belong to the same group".

What's important in that definition ? A people is born form a feeling. We can't dominate and controle our feelings. We can maybe channel them, but we can't controle them.
So, now, it's important to try to find from what that feeling can come from :
Common physical appearance, common language, common religion, common culture, common customs, common history, common genealogical links and many more.

I consider that feeling as extremly important as it's the base for an "awereness of the whole". That awereness of the whole is necessary for people to coordinate between each other. The awereness of the whole might require some arbitrary rules that have no other function that help people living together. For that awereness of the whole to exist, it's important there is foreigners. You can't understand what's silence without understanding what's noise. I suppose that the best way to create a harmonious, propsoer society, you need a strong "awereness of the whole", said in other time : you need a strong patriotism. That doesn't require you hate other groups, but however that require you recognize that you belong to a group.

I don't think you can take two different people and just declare "now you belong to the same group". You don't ordain a feeling. You can't take people of northern africa, pakistan, move them in western europe and says "ok now, you all have to feel to belong to the same people". Even if they would agree to do so, they can't force themselves to feel in that way.
The best way to feel you belong to a people is being raised in a family of people who feel that they belong to that people.

You can ordain a feeling, yet, it's what the left is trying to do.

So what could we do ?
I would say : close borders, encourage the one that doesn't want to assimilate leave and favour interethnic marriage.
Interethnic marriage in the end is the only way to create back a awareness of the whole, but it take times, a time not measured in years but rather in dozen of years.

 

I am going to have to put this in in two parts.

I am at a loss why people would say the 'far right were less educated at elections.' However I do know what happened in the UK and wonder if in France it was something similar. Thatcher/Regan's neo liberalism continued by New Labour took away the base of support for working people. Along with that Thatcher had pretty much destroyed the ability of Unions to defend workers. Along with that working mens clubs started shutting down. This went along with trying to get people not to align with 'class' which was the base on which the 'poor' could come together and from the strength of unity create change.

Probably the most important thing in respect to what you are saying is that in the UK with the Labour Party becoming much the same as the Tories and further entrenching neo liberalism, the people who had in the past, had been Labour's base, lost their support. There was no one to speak for them.They were suffering because of the effects of neo liberalism on their ability to get jobs, on their rights as workers and so on but they had no one listening to them and fighting their corner. It is also worth noting that prior to Regan/Thatcher working people felt small if they were not working. No one wanted not to be working. It was considered part of the dignity of working people to have a job and provide for their families. The 'drop outs' of the 60's and 70's came mainly from middle class families.

So the situation as far as Britain's working class was that they and particularly the least fortunate, no longer had politicians working for their needs. This is where the far right stepped in. In the UK that was first the British National Party which was a white supremacist party deeply seeped in Jew hatred. Particularly after 9/11 they stopped speaking about that and instead emphasised hatred of Muslims. The were not appealing to the poor in general but to the white poor as their desire was white supremacy. What we found was that this action - that is Labour the party of the left, becoming New Labour and giving up on its most deprived base opened the door for far right groups, originally the BNP but leading on to the EDL, UKIP and so on. There are now loads of them. I would say this divided the working class and by so doing destroyed their strength.

These groups I am told and have looked at one or two, tend now to present themselves in some way as some sort of wholesome group. There front page web sites often have a humanitarian emphasis and in this way little by little they can draw people in. Arguments against the Left, the Left being New Labour are completely understandable. New Labour were no longer working for them and their rights. I understand that similarly in most European countries. the official Left politically, let down their working base. These people are the right of the Labour Party doing everything they can to destroy Corbyn. What seems to have developed is that the left of the Tories and the Right of Labour have much the same thinking and this most certainly is not left wing. A lot of people identify 'the left' with this and I would agree they deserve much criticism still going by the 'left' label. At the same time as this you had a gradual move of the right of the Tory party, who have always had a far right contingent moving towards the ideas of the far right which had captured the thinking of many who were on the left. In the UK we then saw the most unexpected thing. During an election for leader of the party, the first I think decided by the membership of the Party, Corbyn who had been put in as the token left, started to become very popular among the membership. Corbyn presented left values. Nothing far left or anything like that just the sort of values we used to have before neo liberalism. There has been a far more ferocious attempt to smear him and present him as unelectable that even of the far right - apart from those obviously who are already advocating violence. Why more determination to make sure Corbyn does not win than the hard right including that of the Tory party which could do that. I would say simply because of economics. Neo Liberalism as far as an economic system which can provided a decent standard of living to everyone, results in every increasing and more extreme inequality. Fascism historically works in cahoots with Corporate Power. Corbyn would be looking for a new economic system. Hence the far right position in the end is a position which supports Corporate Power and so is supported by their media and so on.

I don't believe France has as yet come up with a genuine left wing alternative which probably is what has allowed the far right to gain so much. Obviously the people who have moved to the far right are not just those who were without a job and many who were the most needy never moved from a position on the left but that seems to have been what happened. The posittion of the left was abandoned by New Labour in favour of Neo liberalism and 'aspirations' rather than 'needs.' Some of those with no political home sought some way to work for change and found it in the explosion of far right groups. The emphasise changd from working for all working people against the worst of neo liberalism, working to keep rights and keep all people in a place of dignity, to the poor hard done white people against those considered the other. It has divided the working class of England. This ways end game is fascism.

Yes, the far right has taken some of the lefts thinking with it. That would be necessary in order to pull them in. What I am saying above is that the previously assumed political 'left' in most countries has not been doing their job. To feel antipathy to them is understandable. However I would say they are not the genuine left. We can see that in people like Corbyn, Sanders, Varoufakis and others.

OK you have made your position clear there.

We currently do not have Democracy in the West. We get votes every few years but we do not have democracy. Our Governments do not serve us, they serve the most wealthy few. We all need to get the corruption which I agree with you ins embedded in Government out and genuine democracy in and part of that requires us gaining a greater understanding of what it is. For instance the very nature of democracy is one of equal rights to all of the people represented by a single vote for all. It is for that reason that Governments have a responsibility to protect minorities against the majority. That of course is not limited to colour but also religion, gender, sexuality and so on.

 

I don't think we have a problem here.

So that would be members of the same church, people who go to the same school, work for the same firm, people who use the same tennis club, like the same music, have the same problems living in the same housing scheme, having the same problems in difficulties in getting work, in being treated badly and so on.

I find you too singular in the way you are talking. I don't really share this experience. With feelings, accept them and they move on. Reject them and get stuck in them!

Certainly people can help each other when they have something in common - like for instance how Unions used to help the WC and how working together they could get change and how the fact that they have stopped doing this, stopped feeling a connection has resulted in us moving into greater and greater inequality and loss of rights those who came before us worked for.

There has not been that in France since you were born. I would argue that any feeling of that has been artificially imposed. In my childhood almost everyone was white but we did not feel 'a people'. No one thought in that way. In fact we looked for differences exactly as we are doing now. For instance Protestants and Catholics did not like each other.

I totally disagree. It appears to be an artificially created concept to allow disparity of 'the other' and as I said we did just the same when there was hardly a non white in sight. What we have learned is that picking on people because of who they are causes serious problems and that we are all people and we work best, feel best when we work together accepting each other and our differences.

Explain

Patriotism I think is a word which has slipped in from the US since 9/11. It believes itself to be the better side of Nationalism but I think this is frequently a con. You may not be meaning this but the other side of it is the belief that those who do not agree with the 'patriotic' opinion are traitors. In a Democracy on the other hand there is on going disagreement and people keep their eyes on the government and hold it to task. This is best done when there are lots of different opinions hence the need in a democracy for freedom of speech and thought.

Obviously new people entering any group need time to acclimatise. We do however know that this is much easier achieved if they are made to feel welcome and part of what is going on. This could be seen in the difference between the Syrian Refugees who settled in the Scottish Island of Bute and were welcomed as part of the community and some who have found themselves suffering racial harassment in cities.

Possibly France is different to the UK. In the UK all citizens are nationals - are the people.

Of course not but we have been well aware for a long time what helps people to integrate and what does not. If we bring people to our country and then treat them as if they do not belong then we are asking for trouble - and I will go further than that. I believe the far right does want trouble with non white people to further their intent on ethnic Nationalism by whatever needs it deems necessary just like they tried when we were last in a similar political/econimic situation, the 1930's.

Now we are moving to the social/psychological. What a child needs to survive most psychologically whole is a feeling of attachment and not just for the first 3 years. If through love the parents gain the attachment (and respect) of their children then their children will want to please them. I think that could be argued to immigrants as well. Nowadays with regard to children it appears at an ever younger age their attachment is to their tablet or tv and to their groups of peers. Some psychologists see a big problem for the future in this. Obviously wanting to fit in with people who know as little as you and who like you have brains which are very far from fully developed is a big problem. I will say this is not a criticism of individual parents - they are too busy doing three jobs trying to keep the family together but it is a criticism of society. Now some people are suggesting that the most psychologically healthy society to bring up a child in was in the hunter gather society. Here the child could become attached to all the people in that society and always knew there would be someone there for them. I think the way you are discussing 'a people' is a false attempt to get back that kind of feeling. We can work to produce a feeling of inclusion for all our people but it in no way depends on the tribe. It must be for all the people or the society will not be healthy and there will be far more unhealthy behaviour.

You appear to be suggesting the 'the left' is demanding you have certain feelings. This isn't true. What people suggest is either their own feelings and in this it would appear to be antipathy towards those not belonging to a false feeling of tribe. This creates a feeling of them and us which leads to 'them' being treated badly, which would lead to them becoming scared and probably at some time or from some of them, retaliating. I already hear that a lot of non white people in England are becoming scared with the rise of the far right.

We do know from masses of research how to help people settle and feel part of society. When you believe 'the left' are demanding you have a particular feeling, I would say it is not that at all. They may be demanding you follow certain rules to allow society to function more smoothly but your feelings belong to you and are your responsibility. Society is an important word here as this is not something which has been given sufficient attention since Margaret Thatcher announced that there is No Society - that of course being true of neo liberalism which is just looking for the way that makes the most money - generally for the few.

VotreAltress what you are suggesting here is just the stuff people were suggesting when we were pretty much all to some extent White Supremacist. It has all been tried. It is known how much harm it caused before and would without question cause as much again.

I agree to some extent about closing borders or not allowing more immigration until people want it. However it does depend on how it is done and on this I do think we need some agreed UN laws. We are going to be seeing a lot more refugees due to the climate emergency - phew! at least I expect you to agree there!! The world currently is on cracking point and the end result of that could very easily be human extinction. We need new thinking to cope with the current crises - green deals and so on and I would suggest we need to be seeing things through the lens of our shared humanity not some fantasy of a once tribe - by the way did you know that many French people have native American genes. They apparently were living there before the other various people started arriving in France and lived together for some time.....and for that matter did you know that 1% of Scottish men are descended from the Berbers.

I do appreciate what you said about respect. Mutual respect allows us to exchange different views rather than just throwing insults!!

 

@alexa I don't have a lot of things to answer.
Concerning awareness of the whole :
Basically, it's understanding that the sum of the parts is beyond the parts. It's for a human being to understand it belong to a bigger whole. That might be true for a human group, but as time advance, it work aswell for the rest of the nature. Basically, it's understanding that somehow, we're alike to a "cell" of a "body", awereness of the wole is the consciousness of that body.

I tend to consider that to understand that we have a shared humanity, we have to understand we belong to a family, a city, a nation. I have a lot of troubles with people rejecting their nationality/country to declare themselves "citizen of the world", as it it could be opposed.

I' much more pessimistic than you on the ability of successfull melting pot. The increase of number of climate refugees aswell, as the relationship between locals and newcomers are more and more like a bunch of dynamite.

Concerning the native american and berbers, I know about it, and concerning the place I come from, it's quite likely that I have both of those origins in my blood. I'm not into a racial purity idea, I know it's absurd.

Concerning ecology, it's another debate, but I do share the same worries.

 

I can go with that

Be careful of have to's or shoulds. They tend to suggest something imposed from above.

I think that is very much to do with how the situation is addressed. I was living in London at the time of the Brixton Riots and Broadwater farm - indeed working in Brixton. This was correctly seen in the enquiry as being a response to institutional racism. What followed was an enormous amount of measures brought in to address that and if my memory serves me well, that was under the umbrella of Ken Livingston. These were not just a list of rules. This was based on talk and understanding as well. It was based on bringing people of the local community together, getting them to meet and see the other as human beings and moving on to the place where thinking which causes hurt and aggression could be addressed. From there you get the rules as guidance. In the UK local Government and I think primarily that of London moving out from there to the rest of the UK, was responsible for addressing the issues which were causing harm in the community based on prejudice whether that was caused by race or any other prejudice. Local Government at that time was working well, looking after the needs of the community.

Then we had neo liberalism changing that. First off, Thatcher got rid of Livingston and the Greater London Council. Then she and those who came after massively withdrew money from Local Government so that now in England we have the situation where some of them do not even have the ability to provide mandatory services as for instance for children in danger.....and if we take this, deliberate removing of resources and hence power from local government, which has been going on in the UK alongside neo liberalism, we see the taking away of the fundamentals of democracy. Tocqueville, political theorist of last century, believed that Democracy would only work with a small central Government dealing with things like overall finance and foreign affairs and most of the affairs of Government done at the local level because that was the level on which people knew what was needed. He believed people would be talking about political issues together, most notably in the pub! Here he is illustrating a need of democracy - for it to be by and for the people which requires people to be knowledgeable and able to change things. By reducing local Government, central Government since Thatcher has worked at destroying the base from which democracy can work. I do not know how things went in France but I would say that is pretty much as it has been here.

(Obviously there are different issues now but I would suggest they are more to do with our countries through neo liberalism becoming Military Industrial States which those in charge enjoy indulging in.)

I understand you are not someone who can be put in a box!!

I am not sure about it being a different debate. Two people who I have learned to respect believe that resolving the climate emergency is going to be what saves us from the impending fascism. One of these is Paul Mason. He believes that at the moment and as a response to neo liberalism and its denial of everything but the economic, we now find ourselves once again in a situation where we have a temporary alliance of the elite and the mob. He believes that at base this is an alliance of inhumanity. He sees this as being against the working class and liberalism. Clearly he sees this as an incredibly dangerous situation. Indeed he believes that we must start working to save our humanness. With the giving up of ethics which went with neo liberalism as well as the advance of technology and its ability to influence us, what we consider our humanity and particularly free will is at stake. Agencies like Cambridge Analytica through social media and what not have about 5,000 facts on each of us. They can use these facts to present to each of us propaganda which they know will influence how we see things and hence how we develop politically and where we give our vote. We know they were involved in the Brexit vote. As he points out we ourselves do not carry 5000 pieces of information about ourselves at any time. Hence they are able to provide information which very powerfully triggers the desired response from those it targets. He speaks about social scientists now who see both humans and robots as just machines which can be manipulated to do whatever is desired and which will lead to the end of free will.

He says to defeat algorithmic control, to keep control of artificial intelligence and to defeat the right we are going to have to centre the defence of the human being on a theory of who humans are. What he is saying here appears to suggest that social scientists, and that is what my degree is in, have moved from their base which was the study of humanity right to where humanity apparently no longer exists except as an entity to be programmed.

We now have, as he sees it, the rise of the temporary alliance of the elite and the MOB - why did this alliance happen? He says because Neo Liberalism stopped working in 2008. He says it is possibly easier to understand this if you think of our economics system like religion - in that they are something we believe in and rely on. What happens if a religion proves itself wrong - for instance it is based on the idea the world ends at a certain time and it does not. It has proved itself wrong. He suggests at that time people move back to what they knew before. He could be right there. I have been arguing for moving back to a mixed economy which we had after WW2. However the Right have been arguing for what we had before that and that was Nationalism, White Supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, denial of the climate emergency and so on which he sums up as inhumanity. That seems to be what is on the rise now and taken with the ability of technology to influence people what is on the rise.

He believes to counteract that we need to develop a defence of our humanness and seems to believe we need to develop an idea of what it means to be human.

If we don't have an idea of a good society and how we are going to get there – the idealism that used to be the base of politics in democracy and something which has been lost within neo liberalism which only cared about the market and not personhood, according to Mason, if we do not get that humane process activated again we will lose the benefits of the enlightenment. He likes being called a snowflake as he believes it contains some of the best attributes of human beings including care and compassion. He says there needs to be a 'snowflake insurrection' - and that that is necessary to avoid climate disaster and human extinction. For that reason he believes the genuine left need to work with the Centre - that would be most of the democrats and a few Republicans in the US and the left of the Tories, Right of Labour in the UK as they unlike the new right do believe what scientists say and do know there is a climate emergency. He hopes that that is what will save humanity from both fascism and human extinction. Through that he hopes we will rediscover our humanity and ability to work together for the good of all.

 

How I have described Mason's view above is not completely accurate. It is an antihumanist view he believes 'the elite and the mob' have.

 

The Western world, yes.

Many parts of the Middle East have long been like that.